Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

There are smart ways to diversify our exports

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Philip Cross

The Bank of Canada recently cut interest rates again, with further cuts likely in response to Donald Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Canadian exports. This continues the Bank’s reflexive turn to lower interest rates to goose growth every time the economy slows that began during the 2008 global financial crisis and reached its apex during the outbreak of the Covid pandemic when rates essentially hit their zero lower bound.

It’s time policymakers in Ottawa stop relying on easy money policies in response to every hiccup in economic growth. Lower interest rates have introduced major distortions into Canada’s economy. They have fueled excessive debt levels in all sectors of the economy, helped to create a housing bubble that will depress growth when it bursts, undermined our consensus on the usefulness of immigration when excessive demand raised the cost of shelter, and led youths to lose hope of achieving the dream of owning a home. Housing’s unsustainably large share of our economy helps undermine our potential productivity, the lack of which Bank of Canada Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers last year called a “break the glass” emergency. However, the Bank’s own easy money policies spurs the shift of more resources to housing and encourage governments to ignore taking actions that would boost business investment and exports, the two sectors needed to improve our long-term productivity and competitiveness.

There are policy alternatives to just mechanically lowering interest rates and juicing housing demand. The silver lining in Trump’s tariff threats is they drive home to Canadians the twin follies of not diversifying our energy exports from the U.S. market and not lowering internal barriers to trade among our provinces. We witlessly ignored opportunities to move on both fronts for nearly a decade after Trump fired his opening salvo in the trade war with punitive tariffs on our aluminum and steel industries in 2017.

Energy, our leading export, depends on the U.S. market for 93 per cent of its export earnings. Canada has wasted numerous opportunities over the past decade to open overseas markets for oil and gas. The Trudeau government cancelled the Northern Gateway pipeline that would have sent Alberta crude to Asia. The proposed Energy East pipeline to send oil to New Brunswick and ultimately Europe floundered after the federal government complicated the approval process. Multiple proposals for LNG projects were rejected, although the Quebec government is reconsidering its opposition to ship natural gas from an LNG terminal in Saguenay to Europe. Quebec is not reflexively against pipelines: its former Premier Jean Charest boasts how his government oversaw one connecting crude oil imports landing at Levis to refineries in Montreal by clearly outlining the benefits to Quebecers. Restricting our oil and gas exports to the U.S. has depressed their prices, costing Canada tens of billions of dollars of lost revenue and betraying our European allies when they desperately needed alternatives to Russian natural gas supplies following its attack on Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the federal government displayed little leadership in trying to get the provinces to reduce the thicket of regulations and restrictions that impair trade within Canada. The 2017 Canada Free Trade Agreement provided a road map to potentially lower internal trade barriers, but most provinces have been reluctant to tread that path. It is the height of hypocrisy for Canadians to complain about Trump’s threatened tariffs when we tolerate internal trade barriers that are every bit as important and costly to our economy. Statistics Canada, for example, found that trade within Canada moves as if there were a 7 per cent tariff on goods moving between provinces, while trade within the U.S. flows as if there was no effective tariff.

The shock and outrage Canadians are expressing about Trump’s pending 25 per cent tariff on most exports can be channeled to our benefit. Achieving that will require governments to stop our dangerous over-reliance on low interest rates to stimulate housing. Instead, the focus should be improving our access to markets outside the U.S., which are clearly viable and profitable for goods such as oil and gas. Furthermore, if we truly believe our own rhetoric about the benefits of trade, we need to take concrete steps to liberalize trade within Canada.

Philip Cross 2014.jpg

Philip Cross

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Before Post

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X